The defendant appeals his conviction for burglary. Held:
(Code Ann. 26-1601) provides: "A person commits the offense of burglary when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he enters or remains within the dwelling house of another or . . . any other building, railroad car, aircraft, or any room or any part thereof." As is readily apparent there are two essential elements which must be established by the State: 1) lack of authority to enter the dwelling or building; 2) intent to commit a felony or theft. Kent v. State, 128 Ga. App. 132 (1) (195 SE2d 770)
; Ealey v. State, 139 Ga. App. 604 (2) (229 SE2d 86)
A careful examination of the transcript reveals the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding of theft by taking which may be a lesser included offense of burglary ( Lockett v. State, 153 Ga. App. 569
, 570 (1) (266 SE2d 236
); Breland v. Smith, 247 Ga. 690
, 692 (2) (279 SE2d 204
)), since if found it would constitute proof of the second prerequisite element of burglary. As counsel for the defendant points out the co-owner of the building allegedly burglarized failed to testify regarding any lack of authority on defendant's part to enter the building. However, the officer investigating the crime did testify: "[t]he front door of the warehouse had been pried open . . ."
In view of these decisions we can only hold that the evidence was sufficient to show the defendant's lack of authority to enter the building.